Matthew 22:15-22 Then the Pharisees went
out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to
him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, we know you are a man of
integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You
aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us
then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” 18 But
Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to
trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a
denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose
inscription?” 21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to
Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 22 When they heard this,
they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Luke 20:19-26 The teachers of the law and
the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew
he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. 20
Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They
hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to
the power and authority of the governor. 21 So the spies questioned him:
“Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not
show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22 Is it
right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” 23 He saw through their duplicity
and said to them, 24 “Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on
it?” 25 “Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is
Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 26 They were unable to trap him in what he
had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

Mark 12:13-17 Later they sent some of the
Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him
and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by
men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God
in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15
Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you
trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16
They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose
inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. 17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to
Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.

Introduction

Our text, and the
question which the enemies of our Lord asked Him is one that is culturally
rooted, but the Fourth of July, which we will celebrate tomorrow, helps us to
gain some appreciation of the issues involved here. A number of English
citizens had become discontent with the British Government and with life in the
old country. They set out for the new world. When they arrived in America, the
British government continued to view these people as their own citizens, under
their authority, and thus obligated to pay taxes. This proved irritating to the
Americans, who felt that the British were very far away, that they had no
representation in that government, and that taxation was therefore unfair.
All of this exploded, in time, in the American Revolution. The Declaration of
Independence was precisely that, a declaration of independence from British
rule.

The Jewish people had
more than irritation with the present government to spur them to thoughts of
independence. God had founded the nation, beginning with the promises of the
Abrahamic Covenant, being realized at the exodus, and having several times been
threatened by the captivity which came upon Israel due to their disobedience to
God’s law. The Old Testament prophets had promised Israel that there would be a
kingdom, based upon a new covenant (cf. Jeremiah 32-33), and that God would
raise up Messiah, to rule on the throne of David (2 Samuel 7:10ff.; Luke 1:32).
The introduction of our Lord by John the Baptist (Luke 3), along with the
public appearance of our Lord (Luke 4) and His miracles (Luke 7:22), bore
testimony to His identity as Messiah. His “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem was
the “high point” of His public ministry, and the hopes of many were greatly
fueled. Surely, many thought, Jesus has come to establish the promised kingdom,
and to throw off all foreign dominion. Many were expecting a kind of
“declaration of independence” from Rome’s rule. It is therefore little wonder
that the first question which Luke records pertains to the payment of taxes.
Just as taxation was the sore point in the American Revolution, so it was in
Jesus’ day as well.

The payment of taxes
has never been popular. Taxes are not a voluntary contribution. To fail to pay
one’s taxes, or to pay less than one should is a sure way to get the attention
of the government, and to discover how strong they feel about our payment of
taxes. The payment of taxes is a very pragmatic matter, for governments do not
run without money, tax money. But paying one’s taxes is also a symbolic act,
evidencing his or her submission to the one that is paid. You will remember the
argument of the writer to the Hebrews, who reasons that the one who pays a
tithe is inferior to the one to whom the tithe is paid (Hebrews 7:1-10). Paying
taxes is thus a practical acknowledgment of that government’s right to rule
over us, and of our submission to its authority.

Specifically in our
text, Jesus is being asked whether or not a law-abiding Jew (one keeping the
law of Moses, that is) should pay taxes to Caesar. There is a more general
question at issue, however. The interchange between Jesus and His questioners
which Luke depicts here in our text is one that has to do with the relationship
between God and government. We might even say that the question pertains to the
relationship between church and state. It was an issue that was very much alive
in Jesus’ day, and it persists as a hot issue to this very day. How is one who
professes to trust in God’s Messiah to relate to pagan governments? In our
study of this passage, we will seek to understand the answer which our Lord
gave His questioners, and then to explore its implications for men today.

Overview

From Luke 19:45
through the end of chapter 21 there is an on-going debate, taking place in the
temple. I call this section, “the tempest in the temple.” It began with the
Lord’s possession of the temple, His purging of it, and it continues with His
practice of teaching there daily. Chapters 22 and 23 deal directly with the
arrest, trial, crucifixion, and burial of our Lord. Chapter 24 depicts the
Lord’s resurrection and its impact on the disciples.

Our focus in this
lesson and the next will be on the three questions which dominate the rest of
chapter 20. The first two questions are asked by the enemies of our Lord, and
the last is asked by our Lord Himself. The first concerned the paying of taxes,
the second the resurrection, and the last, the “Son of David” who was also his
“lord.” The questions are prefaced by an explanation (longer in Luke than in
Matthew and Mark) of the motivation of the questioners (20:19-21a). At the end
of the chapter, Luke sums up the section (unlike the other two gospel accounts
of Matthew and Mark) with a strong word of warning from our Lord to His
disciples, concerning the leaders of Israel, who are seeking to destroy Him.

Chapter 19 may be
outlined in this fashion:

(1) The challenge of
Israel’s leaders & Jesus’ response—(vv. 1-18)

(2) The response of
Israel’s leaders to Jesus’ response—(vv. 19-20)

(3) “Should we pay
taxes to Caesar?”—(vv. 21-26)

(4) “Whose wife will
she be in the resurrection?”—(vv. 27-40)

(5) “How can David’s
Son be his Lord?”—(vv. 41-44)

(6) Jesus’ warning
concerning Israel’s leaders—(vv. 45-47 )

It is very important
to recognize that Luke is being selective in what he reports, as are the other
gospel writers (cf. John 20:30-31). Both Matthew and Mark, for example, report
another question, raised by one of the teachers of the law, concerning the
greatest commandment (Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34). I believe that these
three questions are but a sampling of those which were raised during this tense
week in our Lord’s life. It is my conviction that not only the questions, but
their sequence, is of great significance in the development of Luke’s argument,
and in our understanding of the gospel. It is for this reason that I have
chosen to deal with these questions carefully, rather than simply passing over
them quickly, looking only on them as “catch questions” and little else. The
issues which underlie these questions are fundamental, and they spell out, to a
large degree, how the leaders of Israel differed with Jesus and why they
rejected Him as their Messiah.

The Setting (20:19-21)

19 The teachers of the law and the chief
priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had
spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. 20
Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They
hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to
the power and authority of the governor.

Jesus had answered the
challenge of the Jewish leadership, first with an embarrassing question, and
then with a parable. They understood both quite clearly, and their response was
dramatic. They attempted to arrest Jesus on the spot (v. 19). It would seem
that the crowds prevented this. Matthew’s account is more specific here:

“When the chief
priests and Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about
them. They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd
because the people held that he was a prophet” (Matthew 21:46).

It seems to me that
the leaders actually tried to place Jesus under arrest, and that this provoked
a strong reaction from the people, forcing the leaders to back off, and to
develop a strategy that would facilitate a more “discrete” arrest and
crucifixion. The game plan is most clearly spelled out by Luke.

The direct challenge
of Israel’s leaders, as to Jesus’ authority, had backfired, bringing
embarrassment to them. So, too, it would seem, their attempt to arrest Jesus
publicly had failed. The motivation of the leaders was clear: they had been
“put down” by Jesus, and they intended to get even. They were intent on getting
back for the words He had spoken against them (v. 19). Before, they had
purposed to put Jesus to death because of the threat He posed (19:47), but now
it was more—it was a personal vendetta.

The goal of the
leaders of the people is reported here by Luke: they intended to “catch Jesus
in His words” and to “turn Him over to the governor” (v. 20). I believe that
the statement of these two goals is very informative. Let us briefly consider
both elements of their goal.

First, they
purposed to catch Jesus in His words.
It was by His words that Jesus put these leaders to shame. It was by Jesus’
words, the leaders supposed, that Jesus would be eliminated. It is also
significant to me that the leaders of the people could not and would not
attempt to discredit Jesus in any of His actions. Were it so that this could be
said of Christians today! Jesus’ life was impeccable, and His miracles were
irrefutable. They would not even try to take Jesus on in these areas. What a
testimony to our Lord’s sinless life and limitless power.

Second, they sought
to “turn Jesus over to the governor.”
The solution to their problem, as the Jewish leaders reasoned, was a political
one, not a spiritual one. They did not seek to deal with Jesus in any way
prescribed by the Old Testament law. They did not, as did the psalmists of old,
turn Jesus over to God for divine discipline. They turned instead to a secular
government. Indeed, they turned to the very government which they despised.
They would question Jesus about paying taxes to Rome, expecting Him to forbid
it, and yet they looked to Rome to deal with Jesus. The government which they
despised, they turned to, rather than have Jesus govern them. Those factions of
Israel which differed greatly and which strove against each other, now joined
together to rid themselves of Jesus, the Messiah.

The turning to
political powers in order to rid themselves of Jesus made a great deal of
sense. No doubt, they reasoned, they could get this “self-acclaimed Messiah” to
make statements against the power of Caesar, and thus they would be able to
press charges of treason against Him. Furthermore, Rome was not particularly
intimidated by the thinking or feelings of the masses (as was the case with the
Jewish leaders). Were the Jewish leaders afraid of the masses and their support
of Jesus. Let Rome deal with Him, with all of the power which their soldiers
had and their skill at suppressing uprisings. They might be afraid of the
people, but Rome was not.

And so a decisive turn
of events has occurred. Jesus has come to Jerusalem and has challenged the
leaders of the nation. They have rejected Him, and are intent on doing away
with Him, but are fearful of the masses. They now have set out on a course of
gathering evidence against Jesus, which they will use to have Him arrested,
tried, and put to death. This is the backdrop to at least the first of the two
questions which are being posed to Jesus, as recorded by Luke.

21 So the spies
questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and
that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the
truth. 22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

Our understanding of
Jesus’ response in this text must begin with an awareness of what is happening
here in our text. Let us begin with several critical observations:

(1) The question is
not whether or not any person should pay their taxes, but whether or not a Jew
should pay taxes to a heathen, Gentile government.

(2) The issue is
posed as a problem of the law, not as a matter of rebellion or personal
preference. The question is, “Is it
permissible?,” and the standard on which the answer is based is the Law of
Moses.

(3) The question is
posed so as to suggest that there is conflict between God and government,
between “church and state” (in our terms).

(4) The question is
posed so that Jesus is limited to but one answer out of two choices, already
provided. The way the question was
posed does not give Him the freedom to answer as He chose, but rather as they
chose. The longer I am in ministry the more I am intrigued with the kinds of
questions people ask, and the way in which they phrase them. Those who really
want to learn leave the answer completely open. That is, when they ask a
question, they do not limit the one they are asking to only certain
possibilities. It is those who wish to prove something who limit the
possibilities. I resent questions which restrict the freedom to answer them any
way I choose, rather than the way the questioner has chosen. (5)
The entire event oozes with HYPOCRISY. Consider
the following evidences of hypocrisy:

0.In appearing to respect
Jesus as a teacher, a man of truth.

0.In appearing to desire
to know the truth.

0.In seeming to want to
obey the government, but not being sure that they could or should, according to
the Law. “Is it permissible? Will the law let me do this?”

0.In appearing to have a
problem with government, when the problem was Gentiles.

0.In appearing to desire
to give to God, rather than to government, but in previous parable not wanting
to give God His due.

0.In appearing to have God
as a priority and government as secondary, when, in reality, they had chosen
government over God, as would be most evident at the cross—“We have no
king but Caesar” (John 19:15).

So here was the
question: “Shall we pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Not a bad question, when you think of it. The only
thing wrong with the question was the intent of those who asked it. A sincere
Israelite (which the questioner was posing to be) could have asked it. Should
an Israelite pay taxes any longer to Rome, when Messiah was now present? Didn’t
Messiah come to throw off the shackles of the Gentile rulers and to establish
the promised kingdom? Why, then, should one pay taxes any longer to Rome? If
Israel was to submit to Messiah, why should an Israelite pay taxes to some
other king?

The answer, it seems
to me, was obvious—that is, it seemed to be obvious. There could hardly
be any doubt as to what Jesus should say. After all, He was claiming to be
Messiah. He was claiming the right to rule. He was, indeed, bold in His
denunciation of Israel’s leadership. Why should He not be as direct with regard
to the political rule of Rome? Let Him now speak out on this issue. Let Him
declare His position. And when He did, the Roman rulers would be called upon to
crucify Jesus as a traitor, one guilty of treason.

Jesus’ View of Paying Taxes (20:23-25)

23 He saw through their duplicity 65 and said to them, 24 “Show me a denarius. Whose
portrait and inscription are on it?” 25 “Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to
them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

First, note from
our Lord’s answer that it is given in accordance with the motives and
intentions of the one who asked the question. I suspect that the same (essential) question, if asked by a genuine
seeker after truth, would have been answered differently. At least it may have
been answered more fully. Note how brief Jesus’ response was. This is a
“knock-out” in the first minute of the first round.

Second, note that
Jesus asked to see a denarius, a specific kind of money. Jesus first asked to be shown a denarius. The reason
is more evident from Matthew’s account: “Show me the coin used for paying the
tax” (Matthew 22:19).

A denarius was not
just money, though it was that. The denarius was that form of money that was
used for paying taxes to Caesar. In Jesus’ day there were different kinds of
money. In his gospel, Matthew told of how Jesus paid the two-drachma temple
tax (Matthew 17:24-27). The tax was
not paid with a denarius, but with the drachma. This is the reason why the
money changers were exchanging money in the courts of the temple—the
temple tax could not be paid with a denarius. When Jesus asked to see a
denarius, it was because this coin was the one used for paying taxes.

I do not know what was
stamped on the drachma, but I would venture to say that neither the name nor
the image of Caesar could be found on it. The denarius, on the other hand, was
a Roman coin. Caesar’s name was inscribed on it, along with his likeness. It
was a Roman coin. It belonged to Rome, in a way not unlike the way that our
money belongs to the United States of America. If a government can issue money,
it can also require that it be given back, especially in the form of taxes.

Third, note that
Jesus again asked a question, and then based His answer on the basis of their
answer to His question. The question
of Jesus’ authority, raised at the beginning of this chapter, was dealt with by
our Lord by asking a counter-question. When His opponents refused to answer the
question about the source of John’s authority, Jesus refused to answer their
direct question. So, too, in this text, Jesus asked to be shown a denarius, and
then asked the simple question, “Whose image and inscription is on this coin?”

Fourth, Jesus’
answer was neither direct, nor complete.
Jesus did not give a direct “yes” or “no” answer to the question put to Him.
Later New Testament texts such as Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 will go much farther
with this matter, instructing Christians to obey God by obeying government in
every way that does not place one in disobedience to God.

Fifth, Jesus’
answer, in my opinion, took His opponents totally by surprise. I do not think that anyone expected Jesus to say, as
He at least implied, that the people of Israel should pay taxes to Rome. It was
not, in my mind, the wisdom alone of Jesus’ answer that amazed His audience,
but the content of the answer. Who would have ever dreamed that one claiming to
be Israel’s Messiah would ever advocate paying taxes to a heathen government?

Sixth, Jesus’
answer is rooted in the fact that while government and God are distinct, they
are not in opposition to each other.

Seventh, Jesus’
answer is based upon the fact of Israel’s rejection of Him as God’s Messiah,
and of the role of the Gentiles in this world as a result. Jesus has already implied in the parable of the
vineyard that the leadership role of the Jews—their priesthood, for
example—will be taken away and given to the Gentiles (cf. v. 16). If
Gentiles will be given spiritual leadership as a result of the rejection of
Jesus as Messiah, why would God not continue to allow Gentiles to rule over
Israel as a result of her disobedience, even as the Mosaic Covenant stipulated
(Deuteronomy 28).

Eighth, this whole
matter of God and government is not a new matter, but one often dealt with in
the Old Testament, and one which will come to a head at the cross of Calvary. 1 Samuel chapter 8 provides us with a most
enlightening backdrop to this question. You will remember there that Israel
demanded that God give them a king, so that Israel could be like all the other
(heathen) nations, and so they could have a visible leader, who would go before
them and would fight for them. God told Samuel that it was not his leadership,
but God’s that was being rejected. He also warned the people that they would be
heavily taxed by their king, and that the price of this government would be
high. The people nevertheless insisted and they got their king.

Jesus was Israel’s
King, but they would not have Him. Instead of bowing the knee in obedience to
Jesus as Messiah, the leaders of the nation determined rather to look to this
Gentile government to serve their self-interest by putting Jesus to death. They
chose a Gentile government over God. And if this statement seems too strong,
remember the words spoken by none other than the high priests, when they said
to the governor, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). Here, in our text,
we see that the choice has already been made to reject Messiah and to depend on
secular government. It is only a matter of time. Government was designed
by God to be an extension of His rule, but sinful men have often looked to government
as a replacement, a substitute for it. Such is the case here.

Ninth, this matter
of what is due Caesar is not an academic issue to our Lord, for He will render
His very life to Caesar, and not just taxes. Jesus will give up His life on a Roman cross. That was what Caesar
required of Him, but in the will and purpose of God this was the one and only
means of redeeming sinful men, of redeeming Israel from her sins.

Tenth, Jesus
suggests to us what the basis is for determining what belongs to God and what
belongs to someone or something else.
Jesus’ words strongly imply that tax money belongs to Caesar because his
currency had his image and his words written on it. What belongs to God bears
God’s image and has his writing on it. The Christian is begotten (again) in the
image of Christ, and the Word of God is written in our hearts.

Finally, this would
indicate that while tax monies may belong to government, people belong to God. It is one thing for governments to (rightly) require
men to owe them taxes, but it is another thing altogether when governments
think they also have the right to own people. This is only the prerogative of
God, and not of government. Money bears the image and the words of rulers, men
bear the image and the Word of God. Men are created in God’s image, and those
who have come to a personal faith in Him have His word written on their hearts
(cf. Jeremiah 31:33).

The Outcome (20:26)

26 They were unable to trap him in what he
had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

Once again, those who
have endeavored to trap Jesus in His words have only trapped themselves. The
Lord’s answer, as well as the Lord’s absolute and total control of the
situation was disarming. Mouths seem to have been gaping. Minds were reeling.
How could it have gone so wrong? It seemed like such a great plan. Jesus had
won—again. But fools will rush in, as our next text will show. The answer
which our Lord gave was not expected. They gave Him two choices, one of which
He must choose, but He refused, telling them, in essence, that both choices
were true. One must give government its due, which includes taxes. One must
give God His due, which is our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. And these
two obligations often are not in conflict, as the questioners seemed to assume.

Conclusion

Why would Jesus, if He
were the Messiah, not rid the Jews of Roman rule? Why would He tell His
questioners (by inference) that they should continue to pay their taxes to
Caesar? Why was the kingdom not quickly established? Why did Jesus Himself
submit to Caesar and give up His life to these Gentiles, who put Him to death
on the cross of Calvary?

The reason is really
quite simple. Heathen rule was a symptom, not a root problem. From Deuteronomy
28 and other biblical texts we know that Israel’s subjection to Gentile rule
was due to their disobedience to God’s law, to the Mosaic Covenant. The root
problem is not Israel’s bondage to Rome, but her bondage in sin. Israelites
thought of freedom mainly in political and governmental terms, while Jesus
thought of it in redemptive terms, as freedom from the bondage of sin. Jesus
therefore had to die on a Roman cross, not for His own sins, but as the
sin-bearer, as the one who was punished for the sins of the whole world. When
John the Baptist introduced Jesus he did not speak of Him as the One who would
overthrow Rome, but as the One who taketh away the sins of the world.

True freedom, then is
the freedom from the power and the penalty of sin, and it can only be obtained
on the basis of the death of Jesus Christ. By acknowledging your bondage to sin
and by trusting in Christ as your sin-bearer, you can experience the freedom
from sin which Jesus came to bring about on the cross. When you have
experienced this freedom, political freedom, while desirable, is no longer a
compelling need. We will never experience the joy of a perfect government until
Christ returns to the earth to reign as King. And this will happen in the good
timing of God.

In the meantime, we
are to submit to human governments, even pagan ones, so long as we do not
violate the Word of God. Those who questioned Jesus wrongly concluded that
government is contrary to and competitive with the rule of God. But New
Testament teaching (cf. Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17) instructs us that human
governments are not contrary to God’s rule, but a part of it. God has placed
governments on the earth to restrain sin until He comes. We are to obey
government, not as the enemy of God, but as the agent of God.

There are two extremes
to be avoided in our outlook on government. The first is to see government as
the enemy of God, and to be always opposing ourselves to it. The other extreme
is to view government too highly, as man’s salvation and security. It is all
too easy to look to government for those things which only God can give. It is
all too easy to turn from God to government. In our text, we see Israel’s
leaders looking at Jesus, the Messiah, as the problem which they must be rid
of, and a heathen government—Rome—as their deliverer. Just as
Israel rejected God when they demanded a king, like the Gentiles (1 Samuel 8),
so we reject God and look to government to save us.

Some Christians oppose
government unnecessarily and unbiblically, using God as their pretext for
rebellion and disobedience. Others seem to view government as the solution to
all our earthly (and spiritual) problems. Some think that we can establish a
righteous government on the earth and so clean it up that Messiah will come. I
believe that only Messiah can clean up this mess, and that only after He comes
will a righteous government exist. Let us keep government in perspective. It is
not the enemy of God, but God’s agent. Let us obey government as to the Lord,
in every way possible.

I find it very
interesting that the religious leaders of Israel could not find a religious
solution to the problem of Jesus. Jesus was not the problem, but the solution,
and yet they failed to see it, or to accept it even if they did understand that
He was the Messiah. Unfortunately, I find many professing Christians resorting
to political means and methodology because of our spiritual impotence. When we
turn from dependence on God, we turn to human means and instrumentality. How
often we depend more on politics than we do on the power of God to solve our
problems. Let us find Him sufficient. Let us go about our task using the
implements of spiritual warfare, not the secular crutches of politics. Let us
look to God and not to men for the establishment of righteousness on the earth.

On this Fourth of July
weekend, may I remind you that the gospel is our Lord’s “Declaration of
Independence.” It is only by faith in His death on the cross that you can be
truly free. He is the truth that sets men free. May you experience that freedom
today.

NOTE: 65 Note that in
the parallel accounts of both Matthew and Mark, Jesus condemned the hypocrisy
of those who sought to entrap Him (Matthew 22:18; Mark 12:15).

Matthew 22:23-33 That same day the
Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24
“Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having
children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25 Now
there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since
he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened
to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the
woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the
seven, since all of them were married to her?” 29 Jesus replied, “You are in
error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the
resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be
like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have
you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Luke 20:27-40 Some of the Sadducees, who
say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. 28 “Teacher,” they
said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no
children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 29
Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died
childless. 30 The second 31 and then the third married her, and in the same way
the seven died, leaving no children. 32 Finally, the woman died too. 33 Now
then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married
to her?” 34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in
marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and
in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage,
36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels.66 They are God’s children, since they are children of
the resurrection. 37 But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the
dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to
him all are alive.” 39 Some of the teachers of the law responded, “Well said,
teacher!” 40 And no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Mark 12:18-27 Then the Sadducees, who say
there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said,
“Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no
children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 20
Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving
any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no
child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any
children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection whose wife
will she be, since the seven were married to her?” 24 Jesus replied, “Are you
not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25
When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will
be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not
read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I
am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not
the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

Introduction

In my college days,
Ted was my partner on the cleaning crew. He and I were washing windows one
afternoon. We were cleaning the windows of the dormitory in which we lived. In
the basement of the dorm, classes were in session. Little did we realize that
what was about to take place would create such a disturbance they would have to
dismiss the classes. Ted was far up on his ladder, washing the outside of the
second floor dormitory windows. In the basement below him, classes were in
session. Then Dan arrived.

Dan was always into
some harmless, but irritating mischief. He would set up his stereo system so
that he could broadcast messages from his window. Today, as he walked by the
ladder on which Ted was standing, he could not resist giving it a little shake.
Those of us who have stood high up on such a ladder know the disconcerting
feeling of that motion telescoping up the ladder, so that we feel tossed about
in the air. My friend Ted was not pleased with Dan’s humor, and so he did the
only thing possible at the moment—he wrung out his sponge on Dan’s head.

This was the beginning
of a water war so great that afternoon classes had to be dismissed. It rapidly
escalated to buckets full of water, not just thrown about on the outside, but
thrown and dumped in the halls. The place was swamped. It was about this time
that George, the head resident, was informed and appeared on the scene. Believe
it or not, I was not involved in the water war. I was stationed on my ladder,
outside of the dorm, two stories high. It was from this vantage point that I
could see everything—more than I really wanted to.

George came into the
dorm room in front of me, and looked out the window I was washing to see what
all the disturbance was about. He saw me, inches away, busy at work. That was a
shock. He looked down to see Dan, on the ground below me, drenching wet. It was
no surprise for George to learn that Dan was in the middle of this disaster.
George was playing out his supervisory role, dealing with Dan.

My friend Ted was not
in sight. Not in sight to everyone but me, that is. Ted had gone back into the
dorm to refill his bucket. (You should not need to ask why it was empty.) On
his way down the stairwell, Ted looked out and saw Dan standing directly below
him, two stories down. Do you have any difficulty deciding what Ted did? Ted
was on his way to the window, one room to my right. From their positions,
neither George, the head resident, nor Ted, my partner could see each other,
because a wall separated them. I could see both. I could not warn Ted because I
was standing face to face with George. I would not warn Dan. And so it
happened. In front of George’s eyes, a bucket of water descended on Dan, and swamped
him. I did the only thing one in my position could do, I shouted, “Run!” to
Ted. Ted disappeared, just as George did, and both collided in the hall. I was
there to see it all, and to hear George say to Ted, “Man, Ted, You hit him dead
center!”

Now here were words I
had never expected to hear from the lips of a head resident. How could he
commend the “straight shooting” of a fellow who had just instigated a water
war? I think that George was right. He knew that Dan was always in trouble, and
that Ted was a hard-working, dependable fellow. In essence, George was
acknowledging that Dan deserved just what he got. So he did. I have the same
response to the words spoken by the “teachers of the law,” to what Jesus had
said in response to the question of the Sadducees. These teachers, who seem to
have been Pharisees, and who had thus been challenging Jesus from the very
outset of His ministry (from Luke 5:17 on), here commend Jesus for having
spoken well. The reason, of course, is obvious. Jesus had proven the position
of the Sadducees to be wrong. He had taken their “best shot,” their most
profound argument in favor of their case, and shown it to be shoddy thinking.
The Pharisees, though their differences with Jesus were great, could not but
commend Him for His words here. It is as though they had said, in George’s
words, “Man, Jesus, you hit them dead center!”

The Background

Jesus had now arrived
in Jerusalem, in a variety of ways demonstrating Himself to be Israel’s
Messiah. A number of people received Him gladly, but no one understanding fully
who He was, or the implications of His coming. Jesus’ cleansing of the temple,
and His daily possession of it for teaching and ministry was viewed as a
serious threat to their authority and positions by the Jewish leaders, who had
already purposed to put Him to death (cf. John 11:53; Luke 19:47). But when
they challenged Jesus’ authority, Jesus became even more outspoken against
them. The parable of the vineyard and the vine-growers (Luke 20:9-18) was a
painful blow to them, for it not only identified Jesus as the Son of God, sent
by the Father, but it revealed them as God’s enemies, who would be destroyed,
only to be replaced by Gentiles. Before, their opposition was “nothing
personal”; now it was something very personal. They wanted to arrest Jesus on
the spot, but the masses would not allow it. They thus implemented a
multi-pronged plan to have Jesus arrested and put to death by Rome.

One prong of this
attack was the hypocritical question posed to Jesus concerning paying taxes to
Caesar (Luke 20:21-22). Jesus’ answer was not only unexpected, but amazing.
Never would they have thought Jesus could get out of this one, but He did. They
would not have dreamed that Jesus would teach that taxes belong to Caesar, but
He did. As a result, they were left utterly speechless.

It is this silence
that afforded the Sadducees the opportunity they had been looking for. They
were only too happy to use this occasion to pose yet another question to Jesus,
one which they believed would establish their theological position, and which
would stump Jesus as well. At this point, I do not think that the Sadducees
cared about putting Jesus to death so much as they were interested in making
themselves look good. They had an ax to grind (no resurrection, Luke 20:27),
and they would gladly do so at this golden opportunity.

I think that the eyes
of the other groups (Pharisees, in particular) were rolling when this
interrogation began. I can hear one Pharisee saying to another, “Oh, for
goodness sake, here they go again.” What joy these Pharisees had, watching the
Sadducees go down in flames. While they had not successfully drawn blood with
Jesus, they at least had the pleasure of watching one of their rival groups be
discredited, publicly.

The Structure of the Text

(1) The
Setting—(v. 27)

(2) A Passage, A
Premise, and a Problem—Whose Wife?—(vv. 28-33)

(3) Jesus’
Answer—(vv. 34-38)

(4) Marriage is not
for Heaven—(vv. 34-36)

(5) Moses and the
Resurrection of the Dead—(vv. 37-38)

(6) The Response of
Some Pharisees—(vv. 39-40)

The Purpose of the Question

The question of the
one bride and the seven brothers is not a search for the truth. The Sadducees
do not expect, indeed, do not want, an answer. They hope to stump Jesus, and
thus to demonstrate how “foolish” ideas of a resurrection from the dead are.
The purpose of this question is not to “get Jesus into trouble,” but to further
the dogma of this group. If Jesus, the most noted and unstumpable teacher
alive, could be stumped by their question, then He would become (reluctantly)
an endorsement for their view.

This scene bears
witness not only to the authenticity of this gospel record, but also to the
predictable humanity of mankind. Even though these rival groups had come to
some kind of alliance (formally or informally) to rid Judaism of Jesus, they
still had their own pet dogmas and practices, their own “sacred cows,” which
they could not leave alone, even for a short period of time. The rivalry and
competition are still here, even in the midst of this inquisition.

The Sadducees (20:27)

27 Some of the Sadducees, who say there is
no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question.

Perhaps the easiest
way to describe the Sadducees is to say that they are the opposite of the
Pharisees. If a Pharisee said “White,” the Sadducee would be almost certain to
argue, “Black.” The contrast between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, according
to Edersheim at least, can be found in three major areas: (1) their view of
tradition (at least the traditions of the Pharisees), (2) their view of the
supernatural, especially the resurrection of the dead, angels and spirits, and
(3) their views on divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The Sadducees
were disenchanted with the traditions of the Pharisees, they rejected the
concept of the resurrection of the dead, and the existence of angels and
spirits, and they leaned heavily on the role of the responsibility of man. Luke
here tells the reader (as do Matthew and Mark) that the Sadducees “say there is
no resurrection” (v. 27). In Acts 23:8, Luke further informs us that the
Sadducees do not believe in angels or spirits.

Geldenhuys summarizes
the distinctives of the Sadducees in these words:

The Sadducees were the priestly
aristocracy among the Jews by whom the political life of the people was largely
controlled from the time of Alexander the Great onwards. They tried to live in
close contact with the Roman rulers after 63 B.C. so that they might as far as
possible promote the secular interests of their people. Consequently they took
little interest in religious matters and in many respects clashed with the
Pharisees, especially as regards the Pharisees’ attachment to the ‘traditions
of the elders’ which made Jewish religious life so intricate. Everything which,
according to their views, was not taught by ‘the law of Moses’ (the first five
books of the Old Testament) was rejected by the Sadducees as forbidden
innovations. So, as the Jewish scholar Montefiore puts it: “They were in a
sense conservative. The letter of the Law was enough for them; they did not
want the developments of the rabbis. In doctrine, too, they were against
innovation.… Many of these priests, and many of the nobles and ‘rulers,’
possessed, I should think, but a very formal and outward religion. We may
compare them with many of the bishops, barons and rulers of the middle ages”
(Synoptic Gospels, part i, p. 102). 67

In the past, I would
have called the Pharisees the “conservatives” and the Sadducees the “liberals,”
which is somewhat true. But in terms of insisting that doctrine be grounded in
biblical revelation, the Sadducees wanted “chapter and verse,” while the
Pharisees were content to cite their traditions. Note, too, that the Sadducees
have not been mentioned in the gospel of Luke to this point, appearing only
here, but referred to five times in the book of Acts (4:1; 5:17; 23:6, 7, 8).
If the Pharisees were the moving force behind the opposition to Jesus before
His crucifixion, death, and resurrection, it is the Sadducees who take up this
role afterwards, for now the issue of resurrection has become a crucial part of
the gospel message.

The main thing which
Luke wants us to be aware of is that the Sadducees, who are pressing Jesus for
an answer concerning the resurrection do not really believe in it themselves.
The hypocrisy of the Sadducees is thus apparent and undeniable. They were
asking Jesus about something they didn’t believe. Indeed, they were seeking to
establish their premise that belief in a resurrection from the dead is both
unbiblical and impractical.

The Question (20:28-33)

28 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for
us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must
marry the widow and have children for his brother. 29 Now there were seven
brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. 30 The second 31
and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no
children. 32 Finally, the woman died too. 33 Now then, at the resurrection
whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

I cannot conceive of
the question asked here as being an original one. It is no doubt that question
which the Sadducees had found most effective in promoting their particular
doctrine and practice. It surely was not new to the Pharisees, whose eyes must
have rolled when they realized that it was being raised, again. The question
was based upon a command given in the law by God through Moses. The command is
found in Deuteronomy:

If brothers are living
together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside
the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the
duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the
name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel
(Deuteronomy 25:5-6).

The purpose of this
legislation was to assure that each family and tribe in Israel was perpetuated
by the bearing of children. When the oldest brother married, but died before
having any children, the younger brother was to take the widow as his wife so
that the first son would carry on the name and the leadership of the deceased.
Other legislation assured that the inheritance of land would remain in the
tribes and families. Here was a very practical law, given to assure future
generations. One can especially see the importance of this legislation when you
recall the fact that Messiah would be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15), from the
tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:9-10), of the line of David (2 Samuel 7:8-16). How
crucial it was for the tribes of Israel to perpetuate, for from such the
Messiah would be born.

The Sadducees did not
have this purpose in mind when they cited this text, however. They saw this
text as a proof text for their denial of the resurrection of the dead. Since by
this law Moses made provisions for the perpetuation of a dead Israelite’s
family line, the Sadducees seemed to have come to two conclusions. First, they
seemed to conclude that immortality was not attained by resurrection from the
dead, but by the carrying on of an Israelites' family line through his
offspring. Immortality was the perpetuation of a man’s name through his
offspring. Second, they concluded that since a man’s younger brother had to
assume the duties of his deceased brother, Moses must not believe that men
would someday be raised from the dead. Why would such provisions need to be
made for the perpetuation of a man’s offspring if he were someday going to be
raised from the dead?

At first glance, it
would seem that the argument had considerable weight. Did this legislation
imply that men would not rise from the dead? The Sadducees thought so, while
the Pharisees strongly disagreed. Jesus does not argue every point of error,
but highlights two crucial errors in the thinking of His opponents. These Luke
outlines in verses 34-36 and 37-38. Let us briefly consider these two errors of
the Sadducees, as exposed by our Lord.

The Dispensational Error (20:34-36)

34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age
marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of
taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither
marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are
like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the
resurrection.

The Lord Jesus was an
advocate of a “new age” movement. That expression has many disturbing
connotations today, but the fact remains that Jesus was arguing for a “new
age,” as very distinct from the “old” order. The Sadducees thought of the
kingdom in terms of the present, not in terms of the future. The kingdom to
them (especially since they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead) is
now. Consequently, there is no future age. It also follows that since the
“kingdom” is thought of in terms of the present, it will not differ from the
way things are now.

The entire argument of
the Sadducees is predicated on a single premise: life in the kingdom of God
things will be just like it is now. Consequently, the present institution of
marriage is assumed by the Sadducees to continue on in the kingdom. Thus, a
woman who was married to seven brothers would be in a terrible predicament in
heaven, for she would have to choose one of them to live with.

Jesus’ answer was
direct and devastating. He speaks of two ages, “this age” and “that age,” which
are very different from each other. The kingdom of God will be very different
from the way things are now. There will be no death, there will be no bearing
of children, and there will be no marriage. Thus, the theoretical problem posed
by the Sadducees is erroneous and non-existent. Resurrection will pose no
problem for husbands and wives. Marriage is for now, but not for heaven.

People in this age
die, and thus the need for God to spell out through Moses provisions for
preserving the family name. People in the future age will not die, and thus
there is no need for such legislation. One of the reasons why men will not die
in that future age is that their bodies are different, too. Men in that future
age will be “like angels,” which neither die nor reproduce. How different
conditions will be in that future age, and thus how foolish of the Sadducees
because they cannot see how present conditions can be continued after the
resurrection. That is precisely the point. They can’t be continued. There is no
inconsistency, then.

The Israelites all
erred in placing so much emphasis on the “law of Moses,” the Mosaic Covenant,
that they minimized the Abrahamic Covenant. They failed to recognize that the
Mosaic Covenant was temporary, imperfect (unable to perfect), and provisional.
They were partial to the law of Moses, I believe, because it offered them the
opportunity (or so they supposed) to earn righteousness before God, while the
new covenant would give it freely, on the basis of faith as a gift of God’s
grace. Legalists do not like grace, however, and thus they will always opt for
a system of works. Such was not what God had given in the law of Moses, but it
was what the people had made of it. They therefore preferred the temporary to
the permanent, the imperfect to the perfect.

Jesus’ words should
have provided the Sadducees with much fuel for thought. What were some of the
other ways in which “that age” will differ from “this age”? How is it that only
some Israelites will enter into that age, to take part in it (by inference),
and what is it that causes one to be worthy of it? Jesus did not give the
answers to these questions, but He did challenge His audience to think about
them. All of the answers would be very clear, after His crucifixion and resurrection.
For the time being, they only knew that those who enter into the kingdom are
referred to as “children”—“children of God” and “children of the
resurrection.” Resurrection, then, is the gateway to the new age. Surely those
who reject it will not enter into the kingdom.

Moses and the Resurrection of the Dead (20:37-38)

37 But in the account of the bush, even
Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead, but
of the living, for to him all are alive.”

The second error of
the Sadducees was their assumption that Moses rejected the doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead. Jesus now will demonstrate that Moses was a believer
in the resurrection of the dead, contrary to the belief of the Sadducees. There
were a number of clear Old Testament texts which spoke of the resurrection of
the dead, to which our Lord could have referred, and to which the apostles will
refer after our Lord’s death and resurrection (cf. Acts 2). Here are but two of
the clearest:

Your dead will live;
Their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For
your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the
departed spirits (Isaiah 26:19, NASB).

And many of those who
sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the
others to disgrace and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2).

If the Sadducees were
wrong to think of the “kingdom” in “present terms,” they were also wrong to
think that Moses did not believe in the resurrection. This our Lord goes about
proving from the Pentateuch, which was the Word of God written by the hand of
Moses. It was not enough for our Lord to prove the resurrection of the dead was
taught in the Old Testament; He was intent on showing that Moses believed in
it, for Moses was the one to whom they appealed.

Luke is careful to
tell us the context of these words, written by Moses and spoken by God. These
words come from an early portion of the book of Exodus known as “the bush”
section. That is, these words were spoken to Moses by God from the burning
bush. Both the precise words and the context are of great significance to us in
the matter of the resurrection of the dead. Let us consider both briefly.

God identified Himself
to Moses, and thus to Israel, as the “I am,” the eternal God. But further, God
referred to Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, thus speaking of
these patriarchs not as dead men, but as those who are alive, immortal. If God
spoke of dead men as though they were alive, then this implied that these men
would live again, they would rise from the dead. This is that which the writer
to the Hebrews spoke, not only of these three patriarchs, but of all the Old
Testament saints:

All these died in
faith, without receiving the promises but having seen them and having welcomed
them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles
on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking
a country of their own (Hebrews 11:13-14).

By faith Abraham, when
he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was
offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, “IN ISAAC
YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED.” He considered that God is able to raise men even
from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type (Hebrews
11:17-19).

The matter of the
Israelites’ resurrection from the dead was not merely an obscure and
unimportant truth, vaguely referred to in the words of Exodus 3. In reality,
resurrection is the thrust of these words, the assurance of which the writer to
the Hebrews referred, and that which would serve the Israelites as a motivation
for obeying the commandments which God gave through Moses from atop Mt. Sinai.

You see, the context
of “the bush” section is the exodus of the nation Israel from Egypt. God was
sending Moses to Pharaoh, to demand the release of His people. Furthermore, God
was sending Moses to Israel, to call them forth from Egypt. For people to do as
God commanded through Moses was to face the very real possibility of death at
the hand of Pharaoh and his armies. Virtually every command of God to His
people poses a threat to the true believer in Him and in His word. And yet our
text indicates that in spite of the difficulties which seem to be present, dead
men will rise, some to everlasting blessing; others to everlasting torment. It
was God’s character as the eternal One, the I am, and His promise of
deliverance from death which gave the Israelites confidence to obey God’s
leading, even when it seemed to be the “way of death,” as the crossing of the
Red Sea surely seemed to be, beforehand.

In his gospel, Luke
has already made frequent reference to the resurrection of the dead, either
directly or indirectly. Simeon, the saint to whom it had been revealed that he
would not die until after he had seen the Messiah. Thus, on seeing the
Christ-child, he could eagerly face death:

“Now Lord, Thou dost let Thy bond-servant
depart In peace, according to Thy word; For my eyes have seen Thy salvation,
Which Thou has prepared in the presence of all peoples” (Luke 2:29-31).

Herod feared that Jesus may have been John the
Baptist, raised from the dead (9:7-9). Jesus taught that one’s actions ought to
be based on the assurance of one’s resurrection, which was to be accompanied by
rewards for obedience in this life:

“But when you give a reception, invite the
poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do
not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of
the righteous” (Luke 14:13-14).

The God who is greater
than death is the One who has assured mankind that all will be raised from the
grave, some to their rewards, and others to retribution (Daniel 12:2; John
5:28-29). Because of this, Jesus taught, God views all men as alive. This is
why our Lord referred to the dead as only sleeping (Mark 5:39; John 11:11-14).
The resurrection was no small matter. It was, and is, one of the fundamental
and foundational truths of the Bible. As Paul put it in 1 Corinthians chapter
15, if there is no resurrection “we are of all men most to be pitied” (15:19).

And so the Sadducees
are wrong on two counts. In the first place, they were wrong in their
assumption that life in the future, in the kingdom of God, would be but a
continuation of life here in this age. They failed to make a crucial
dispensational distinction. This led them to reject the doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead because it seemed that it would be impossible for men
to continue in the present as they had begun on earth. Their second error was
in supposing that Moses rejected the hope of resurrection, based on their
erroneous understanding of the Law of Moses, and particularly of the
legislation pertaining to the preservation of the oldest brother’s line of descendants.

The Stones Cry Out: Jesus Praised for His
Words (20:39-40)

39 Some of the teachers of the law
responded, “Well said, teacher!” 40 And no one dared to ask him any more
questions.

What irony! The
expressed purpose of the rulers of the Jews was to discredit Jesus by His own
statements, to catch Him in His own words. And yet here we find some of the
Jewish leaders praising the Lord for the words which He just spoke, words which
were especially tough on some. This is, to me, a greater miracle than that of
the rocks crying out in the praise of God. His answer was so powerful, His
adversaries had to commend Him. While they differed with Him in many respects,
they were firmly in agreement about the resurrection of the dead. The praise of
the Pharisees will be short-lived, however, for in the next question, raised by
our Lord Himself, Jesus will show the Pharisees they do not understand the
Scriptures.

Conclusion

I believe that many
questions were asked of Jesus during this period of time (which I refer to as
“the great debate”). Why did Luke choose to record this particular question and
Jesus’ answer, when we have not heard from the Sadducees before in Luke? I
believe that that are at least two reasons: First, the Sadducees will become a
more prominent and aggressive force in the book of Acts (cf. Acts 4:1; 5:17;
23:6-8). Second, the issue of the resurrection of the dead is one that is
crucial to the gospel. Paul clearly taught this, as can be seen in the 15th
chapter of 1 Corinthians. Jesus staked His credibility and His gospel on His own
resurrection (Matthew 12:38-40). The Holy Spirit will utilize the empty tomb as
a powerful witness to the righteousness of Jesus Christ (John 16:10). The
gospel of Jesus Christ stands or falls on the truth of Christ’s resurrection,
and thus the resurrection of all men. In introducing the Sadducees to us here,
Luke is preparing us for their appearance and activity in his second volume,
the book of Acts.

The resurrection of
the dead is also crucial because it is the gateway to the future kingdom of
God, it is the means through which God’s promises made to those who have died
will enter into the blessings which God promised. All of the Old Testament
saints died, without having received the promised blessings of God, but by
means of the resurrection of the dead, they will (cf. Hebrews 11).

The degree to which we
believe in the resurrection of the dead will determine the way we presently
live. If we are assured of our own resurrection, we will boldly stand for
Christ, neither fearing man, nor death. If we are certain of a future life in
God’s kingdom, entered into by means of resurrection, then we will look at this
life very differently. We will be encouraged to lay up treasures in heaven,
rather than to hoard wealth on earth.

On the other hand, the
degree to which we live obediently to the commands of our Lord in this life,
the more we will cling to His promises concerning the resurrection of the dead
and eternal life. The commands of our Lord to “sell our possessions, and to
give to the poor” can now be seen as God’s gracious imperatives, designed to
stimulate in us a hunger for heaven. Notice how the obedience of Paul to his
calling, and even the afflictions and adversities of his life caused him to
have a greater hunger and hope for heaven:

7 But we have this treasure in jars of
clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8 We
are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair;
9 persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10 We always
carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also
be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to
death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body. 12
So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you. 13 It is written:
“I believed; therefore I have spoken.” With that same spirit of faith we also
believe and therefore speak, 14 because we know that the one who raised the
Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you
in his presence. 15 All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is
reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory
of God. 16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting
away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. 17 For our light and
momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs
them all. 18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For
what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal (2 Corinthians
4:7-18).

It is quite easy to
look at the Sadducees with a very critical eye. How foolish, we might think,
for them to reject the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, when it is so
clearly taught in the Scriptures. How evil for them to love this present evil
world so much that they do not want that which is sure to come. But let me ask
you, as I ask myself, how much do we believe in the resurrection of the dead?
How does the certainty of our resurrection, and of the kingdom of God to come,
impact our present lives?

When I was a boy not
yet 16, I used to fear that the Lord would come before I got my drivers
license. That seems foolish to me now, and yet I still have many earthly
desires for the future, and I do not yearn for heaven as I should. Unlike the
Sadducees, who at least were honest enough to admit to rejecting the
resurrection and the future life, I hold to it. But my lifestyle and my values
betray my lack of faith in this area. How much like the Sadducees we really
are. We are so “blessed in this life” that we would set aside thoughts of the
next. May God grant us a certainty of the resurrection, and a yearning for
heaven that overturns the way in which unbelievers live.

NOTES:

66 We are told by Luke
in Acts 23:8 that the Sadducees did not believe in angels either.

67 Norval Geldenhuys,
Commentary on the Gospel of Luke
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 513, fn. 1.
Morris adds, “The Sadducees are mentioned here only in this Gospel. None of the
Sadducee writings has survived so our information about the sect if fragmentary
and we see the Sadducees only through the eyes of their opponents… They were
the conservative, aristocratic, high-priestly party, worldly-minded and very
ready to co-operate with the Romans, which, of course, enabled them to maintain
their privileged position.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1974), pp. 289-290.

Matthew 22:41-46 While the Pharisees were
gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Christ?
Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is
it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44
“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’ 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”
46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask
him any more questions.

Luke 20:41–21:4 Then Jesus said to
them, “How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42 David himself
declares in the Book of Psalms: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right
hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ 44 David calls
him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” 45 While all the people were
listening, Jesus said to his disciples, 46 “Beware of the teachers of the law.
They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the
marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places
of honor at banquets. 47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy
prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.” 1 As he looked up, Jesus saw
the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor
widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “I tell you the truth,” he said,
“this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave
their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had
to live on.”

Mark 12:35-44 While Jesus was teaching in
the temple courts, he asked, “How is it that the teachers of the law say that
the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit,
declared: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your
enemies under your feet.”’ 37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he
be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with delight.

Jesus sat down
opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting
their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.
But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a
fraction of a penny. Calling His disciples to him, Jesus said, I tell you the
truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They
all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in
everything—all she had to live on.”

Introduction

A friend of days gone
by used to tell the story of his uncle, who had just purchased a new
convertible, and was enjoying a ride in the Ozark Mountains (as I recall the
story). He had the top down and the radio up. He did not notice the man in car
behind him, eager to pass, and getting more and more irritated. Nor did he hear
the man’s horn, blaring obnoxiously at him. Finally, the man behind had had
enough. He found room to get by the uncle, but instead of going on by, he
forced the fellow off the road, jumped out of his car and came alongside in a
very hostile mood.

The uncle was quick to
apologize. He was sorry, he said. He had been driving too slow and he had not
been observant to see that the man behind wanted to pass him. He had said all
that one could say to apologize, but the angry driver was not satisfied. He
told him that he was going to yank him from the car and thump on him. Only that
would appease his anger. The uncle realized that words would not suffice, and
so he reached under the seat and pulled out his service 45 pistol, and pointed
it at the enraged driver. It didn’t take that fellow very long to have a change
of heart. Without hesitation he said, “I accept your apology,” turned and drove
off.

That 45 changed things
considerably. It did not change the hostile motorist’s attitude, but it did end
the discussion. Jesus did not pull a 45 on His adversaries, but when our Lord
drew His opponent’s attention to the 110th Psalm, it did end the discussion.
Matthew informs us that from this time on no one dared to ask Jesus a question
(Matthew 22:46). The debate was over.

The final words of
chapter 20 are the powerful argument that could be raised in response to the
challenges of this “tempest in the temple.” It was not just the words of Jesus,
but the words of David in Psalm 110 that were produced with stunning force. The
more I read this psalm, the more I am amazed at its message. And, the more I
wonder at the restraint our Lord used, not drawing attention to all of the
painful particulars which were there. For example, Jesus did draw attention to
the fact that David referred to “his son,” the Messiah, as “his Lord,” but He
did not ask the teachers of the Law (Mark 12:35), the Pharisees (Matthew
22:41), who the enemies of the Lord were. What a powerful passage! What
remarkable reserve! Let us look more carefully to consider what Jesus intended
to accomplish by bringing it to the attention of those who had gathered at the
temple.

Background

Jesus had entered
Jerusalem as the “King of Israel,” but His entry was not altogether triumphal.
The people of Jerusalem and the leaders there were no so enthusiastic as were
the masses who had come temporarily to that city. Some of the welcoming crowds
were those who had followed Jesus there, while others seem to be pilgrims to
the city for the Passover celebration. The leaders of the nation had already
purposed to put Jesus to death (cf. John 11:47-51; Luke 19:47). The matter had
not yet become personal, however. This all changed when Jesus marched on the
temple, threw out those who violated its purposes, and appeared there daily to
teach (Luke 19:45-48). It is the Lord’s possession of the temple in its
cleansing and His subsequent teaching there daily which is the backdrop, the
setting for all that occurs in chapters 20 and 21 of Luke’s gospel.

It was while Jesus was
teaching in the temple that He was confronted by the leaders of the people.
These Jewish leaders came from a broad spectrum of doctrinal and applicational
points of view, from the Pharisees on the far right, to the Sadducees on the
far left. They first of all confronted Jesus directly as to His authority. “Who
do you think you are, and by whom were you sent?” was the essence of their two
questions. Jesus first of all refused to give a direct answer, based upon their
refusal to commit themselves on the issue of the authority of John the Baptist.
If they regarded John as from God, then they had to accept Jesus as the
Messiah, for John had thus introduced Him as such. If they rejected John’s
authority—which they were inclined to do, but unwilling to take the heat
for—they would incur the wrath of the masses, who believed John to be a
prophet, sent by God and who spoke for Him.

In His parable of the
vineyard and the vine-growers (Luke 20:9-18), Jesus did answer the question of
the leaders, but in an indirect way, and to the people who believed Him to be
from God. From the parable, He indicated that He was not merely a prophet, like
John, but actually the Son of God. As such, He had the authority of God
Himself, for He was God, and He also had the authority of the Father, who had
sent Him. But there was more. He went on to indicate that His rejection by the
leaders of Israel would lead to their removal and destruction, and, horror of
horrors, that their leadership roles would be filled by Gentiles.

Now the rejection of
Jesus was fueled by great personal animosity. It was a very personal issue with
the leaders of Israel. If they had coolly planned to destroy Jesus before hand,
now they could not wait to get their hands on him immediately. They tried, but
were unsuccessful, and thus they resorted to a more devious and indirect
approach (Luke 20:19-20). They had come to the decision that they could not
handle Jesus, especially in light of the broad support which Jesus still had
among the masses. They therefore planned a course of action which would legally
kill Jesus, in spite of the support of the masses. They conspired to catch
Jesus in His words, to entrap Him in some statement against Rome, so that the
political authorities—the governor (Luke 20:20)—would arrest Him
and put Him to death for treason.

The first question
looked like it could not fail to incriminate Jesus. They asked Jesus, as One
claiming to be Messiah, whether or not they, as Israelites, should pay taxes to
Caesar (Luke 20:21-22). Would the King of Israel, who was foretold to be coming
to throw off the shackles of Gentile rulers, advocate paying taxes to such a
pagan? They Jews could not conceive of such thing. Jesus’ answer rocked them.
Because it failed to achieve their intended purpose, because their hypocrisy
was exposed, and because Jesus actually taught that taxes should be paid to
pagan kings.

The Sadducees viewed
the stunned silence that followed as their golden opportunity. They would seek
to prove their point, that there was no resurrection, and they would “use”
Jesus, the greatest teacher of that day, to do so. So they thought, at least.
But Jesus’ answer showed that they had not thought their theology through very
carefully. They based their whole argument on a passage from the law of Moses,
from a temporary covenant, rather than on the basis of the new covenant and the
promises made to Abraham. They had wrongly assumed that life in the kingdom
would be like life on earth, and thus they had assumed that marriage would
continue on in that future age. Jesus corrected this error. He also
demonstrated that Moses could not be cited as rejecting the truth of a
resurrection from the dead, showing from His own writings that He viewed God as
the God of those who had died, but yet whom He considered alive, still. Moses
not only failed to fit into their theological scheme, he refuted it.

The Pharisees and the
Herodians had posed the first question, about paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew
22:15-16); the Sadducees had raised the issue of the resurrection of the dead.
The teachers of the law, whom I assume to be Pharisees, cannot but praise the
Lord for His answer (Luke 20:39). But now, Jesus has a question for them. It is
a question about Scripture, a Scripture which I believe to be popularly
understood as messianic—speaking of the Messiah. It was a Scripture which
the Pharisees seemed to know well, and to teach on. Jesus was about to show the
Pharisees (Matthew 22:41), the teachers of the law (Mark 12:35), how their
theology failed to square with the Scriptures. Jesus turned the attention of
His audience to Psalm 110, a psalm written by David, which spoke of Messiah to
come. This is the same psalm to which Peter will forcefully use at the
conclusion of his sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:34-36).

How Can David’s Son Be David’s Lord?
(20:41-44)

41 Then Jesus said to them, “How is it
that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42 David himself declares in the
Book of Psalms: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 43 until I
make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ 44 David calls him ‘Lord.’ How
then can he be his son?” 68

The Pharisees enjoyed
the way that Jesus had silenced and their opponents, the Sadducees, when they
sought to entrap Jesus in such a way as to give credence to their rejection of
the resurrection of the dead. Thus they could not restrain themselves from
praising Jesus for His response, even though they had set out on a course of
trying to catch Jesus in His words. But the Pharisees did not handle the
Scriptures skillfully either, as Jesus is about to show. They failed to take
the Scriptures seriously enough, as could be seen by their handling of Psalm
110, a psalm which Judaism held to be messianic. 69 Let us begin by looking at the psalm in its entirety:

The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right
hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.” The LORD will stretch
forth Thy strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Thine
enemies.” Thy people will volunteer freely in the day of Thy power; In holy
array, from the womb of the dawn, Thy youth are to Thee as the dew. The LORD
has sworn and will not change His mind, “Thou art a priest forever According to
the order of Melchizedek.” The Lord is at Thy right hand; He will shatter kings
in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations, He will fill them
with corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country. He will drink
from the brook by the wayside; Therefore He will lift up His head (Psalm 110).

In Matthew’s account,
Jesus is reported as having asked the Pharisees directly about whose son the
Christ was (22:41-42). In Mark and Luke, Jesus seems to be speaking to others
about the teaching of the Pharisees. I see no contradiction. Jesus was daily in
the temple, teaching the people. It was also here that our Lord was confronted
and challenged by the leadership of the nation. I believe that Jesus asked the
Pharisees directly, at this time of confrontation, and then referred to it in
His subsequent teaching. They had all heard the question posed to the Pharisees
by Jesus, and the answer that was given. Now, Jesus would challenge the crowd
to think about what they had heard, and to come to their own conclusions.

When the Pharisees
were asked, “Whose son was Messiah, the Christ?,” there was no hesitation in
their response. Everyone who looked for Messiah’s coming believed he was to be
the “son of David.” This was indicated by the prophets, who said that the
Messiah would come through the line of David, and who would reign on the throne
of David (cf. 2 Samuel 7:8-29; Isa. 9:5-7; Mic. 5:2). At the birth of our Lord,
it was emphasized that Jesus was of the line of David, and that He had come to
reign on His father’s throne (Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4). In Luke
18:38, the blind man on the outskirts of Jaycee called to Jesus as the “Son of
David.” The Messiah was to be David’s son. This seems to have meant two things
to the Israelite. (1) Messiah would be of the Davidic line; and (2) Messiah
would be a man—human. It was not carried through so as to be consistent
with other revelation—that Messiah would also be divine, that Messiah was
to be both man and God:

For a child will be born to us, a son will
be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name
will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, eternal Father, Prince of
Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On
the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with
justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of
hosts will accomplish this (Isaiah 9:6-7, NASB).

Jesus did not appeal to
Isaiah to prove His point, but rather to the 110th psalm, a psalm of David.
This psalm does not stress the humanity of Messiah. David did not refer to the
Messiah as “his Son,” but rather reveals the words of the Father Himself (“The
LORD,” v. 1), who speaks to Messiah, His Son and David’s Lord (“my Lord,” v.
1). It was taught in Scripture that Messiah would be the “son of David,” and
yet David himself refers to Messiah as “his Lord.” How can this be? There was a
clear, simple, but miraculous answer—the incarnation. Jesus Christ was,
as the Old Testament Scriptures foretold, and as the New Testament writers
attested and confirmed, both God and man, human and divine, through the miracle
of the virgin birth. Before the birth of our Lord, the two aspects of His
character and nature—the divine and the human—seemed in conflict,
but not after His birth. The incarnation was a miracle, but it is the
all-powerful God who promised it, and who brought it to pass.

I believe that Jesus
chose Psalm 110 over all other available texts for several reasons:

(1) Since the Messiah
was commonly understood to be a “son of David,” who could speak with more
authority on his son than David?

(2) The 110th Psalm
went far beyond the issue of Messiah’s humanity and His deity, referring to His
coming in power to overthrow His enemies. In addition to speaking of Jesus as
Israel’s King, it also taught that He would be her priest, of an entirely
different order than the Aaronic priesthood. This must have been a rather
disconcerting thought to the priests.

(3) Psalm 110 reveals
the attitude of David, as Israel’s leader, to the superiority of his Son. In
ancient times, some kings killed their offspring, so that they could not take
over their throne. Other kings would have taken great pride in their son,
saying repeatedly, as it were, “That’s my son!” David gratefully anticipated
the day of his Son’s enthronement, and he wrote a psalm of worship in response
to God’s revelation to him. David welcomed His Son’s greatness, his superiority
to himself.

(4) Psalm 110
confronts the Israelite with a very perplexing problem, a problem which is
central and foundational to the Israelite leaders’ rejection of Jesus as the
Christ. The Psalm clearly teaches both the humanity of Messiah (a son of David)
and His deity (David’s Lord). This was the fundamental problem which the
leaders of Israel had with Jesus. If you could sum up the grievance of the
Jewish leaders with Jesus, I believe it would be this: ALTHOUGH JESUS WAS
MERELY A MAN (in the eyes of the Jews who rejected Him), HE HAD THE AUDACITY TO
ACT LIKE GOD

From the very early
portions of Luke’s gospel, the issue of our Lord’s humanity and His deity were
stressed. In the birth narratives, Jesus’ birth was a miraculous one, so that
the offspring of Mary and of the Holy Spirit—the virgin birth of
Christ—was an utterly unique person, the God-man, Jesus the Christ, who
was at one and the same time, fully man and fully God. In the fifth chapter of
Luke’s gospel, Jesus told the man lowered on his pallet through the roof that
his sins were forgiven. The Pharisees immediately objected, on the basis that
only God could forgive sins (Luke 5:21). They reasoned, “How can a man claim
divine prerogatives?” The answer was simple: “Jesus could claim to forgive sins
because He was both man and God.”

This issue persisted
throughout the life and ministry of our Lord, and came to its climax in the
final week of our Lord’s earthly life and ministry, commencing with the
triumphal entry, aggravated by the Lord’s cleansing of the temple, and by His
teaching there. The question of Jesus’ authority, as recorded by Luke in
chapter 20 (verses 1 & 2) was an outgrowth of the Israelite leadership’s
rejection of our Lord’s claim to deity.

By citing this passage
from Psalm 110, Jesus made it clear that they not only had a grievance with
Jesus, who claimed to be both human and divine, but more so, they were
inconsistent with the Old Testament Scriptures, even those written by King
David, which spoke of Messiah as a man and as God. The citing of Psalm 110 by
our Lord brought the central issue into focus, and showed it to be a truth
taught clearly by the Scriptures.

Finally, David’s
response to the fact that His son was superior to him was to provide a contrast
with the attitude of the leaders of Jesus’ day, who resented Jesus superiority,
and whose jealousy was so strong they purposed to put Him to death. That
contrast becomes clear as we move to the next section, where the real motives
of the Pharisees are exposed by our Lord.

The Messiah’s Foes (20:45-47)

45 While all the people were listening,
Jesus said to his disciples, 46 “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like
to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and
have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at
banquets. 47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers.
Such men will be punished most severely.”

The problems of Jesus’
foes were, in the first place, theological ones. For the Sadducees, it was the
issue of the resurrection. For the Pharisees, it was the issue of Jesus’ deity
that was the central bone of contention. Jesus has now addressed both of these
issues in the preceding verses. He now moves on to the practical problem of the
Pharisees, who are His principle focus. One problem was the that of abused
authority, of wanting those things which belong to God, and to His Christ, who
is God. They loved the position, prominence, power and prestige of leadership.
They resented Jesus for “outranking them” and for rightfully becoming the
object of men’s worship and praise.

Another problem of the
Pharisees was that of hypocrisy. They wanted to appear righteous, to practice
that kind of “righteousness” which could be seen and applauded by men (Luke
16:15). But the greed of the Pharisees led them to abuse their authority in
another way: they used their power and position to take advantage of the weak
and the powerless. In Jesus’ words, they “devoured widows’ houses.” To mask
this, they made a great show of their “righteousness” by praying lengthy
prayers. (It is interesting, by way of contrast, to note how short the recorded
prayers of our Lord are.)

For their wickedness
and hypocrisy, the Pharisees would be even more severely punished, for they had
abused their stewardship of leadership. But what is the logical connection
between what Jesus has just asked, pertaining to David’s son being also his
Lord, and this? There is a very clear connection, I think. Consider it with me
for a moment.

Look once again at
that portion of Psalm 110 which our Lord has cited: “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’
Not only has David called his son his Lord, but he has cited the Father’s words
to the Son, which speak of a time of waiting, and then the overcoming of His
enemies, whose overthrow paves the way to the establishment of His eternal
throne.

Jesus’ question was an
obvious and potent one, but there is an unstated question here, one which our
Lord’s enemies could hardly have missed: “Who are Messiah’s enemies?” If Jesus
were the Messiah, as He claimed, and as John had testified, then they were His
enemies. They were the ones whom God would overthrow. And this is precisely
what Jesus had suggested in the parable of the vineyard and the vine-growers
earlier in this chapter (vss. 9-18).

These words of
indictment, which are very briefly stated by Luke, are given in much greater
detail in Matthew 23. But the indictment in both cases comes immediately after
the question about David’s Lord. The enemies of Messiah are the enemies of
Jesus, and these enemies are not Gentiles, but Jews, indeed they are the
leaders of the nation, who have prostituted their power and position for their
own gain, at the expense of the most vulnerable. The outcome was that the
widows, those whom the law instructed Israelites to protect, were the victims
of the leaders of Israel. No wonder they resisted Jesus, and no wonder God was
about to destroy them.

Now, the contrast
between David’s response to the revelation that his Son would be greater than
he, and the attitude of the leaders of the nation Israel toward Jesus can be
seen. David, upon hearing that his son would be his Lord, rejoiced. It was a
day David longed to see. It was different with the leader of Israel and Jesus.
The Lord’s words indicate that they came to enjoy the position, the prominence,
the power, and even the riches that came with their position. They did not wish
to relinquish this to anyone, not even Messiah. Thus, while David rejoiced at
the knowledge that Messiah, his son, would be both God and man. The leaders of
Jesus’ day rejected the deity of Messiah flat, especially in the person of
Christ. Jesus’ citation of Psalm 110 forced them to reject this
doctrine—the doctrine of Messiah’s deity—from the Scriptures
themselves.

Note one more thing
about Psalm 110. The second (unquoted) stanza of the psalm talks of the
Messiah, not as Israel’s King, but as her Priest. How would you have felt, if
you were one of the priests of that day, to have been reminded of this psalm,
which spoke of a new order of priest, an order of which you were not a part? As
Jesus had warned in the parable of the vine-growers, the position of the
leaders would be taken away. The priesthood of a few would become the priesthood
of all believers, especially (in this age) of Gentiles. And the Great High
Priest would be Christ Himself, who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
These would be sobering words to one who sought to preserve his position, and
at the same time sought the destruction of Messiah.

The Contribution of the Weak and Powerless
(21:1-4)

1 As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich
putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in
two very small copper coins. 3 “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor
widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts
out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

It is somewhat
perplexing as to why these first four verses of chapter 21 are divided, so that
there is the suggestion that they relate more to the disciple’s comments on the
glory of the temple (21:5ff.) than to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, at the
end of chapter 20. The NASB version seems to leave them connected to chapter
20, while the NIV does not. In Mark’s account, however, the “widow’s offering”
is kept as a part of chapter 12, with chapter 13 beginning with the disciples’
words about the temple.

It would seem to me
that these four verses are placed here by Luke in contrast to the Pharisees, to
show how God’s ways differ so greatly from those of men. The Pharisees loved
riches, and they viewed wealth as an evidence of piety. God, in their minds,
would be impressed by the wealthy, and would be especially pleased by the size
of their contributions. In these last verses of Jesus has condemned the “rich
and famous” and He commends the insignificant gift of a widow. While the
Pharisees have “devoured widows’ houses,” it is the gift of one such widow
which is the focus of our Lord’s praise and instruction. An insignificant amount
of money greatly pleased Jesus, because of what it meant to her. It was her
life, her livelihood, all that she had to live on. In giving this money, she
evidenced her trust in God to provide for her needs, and to sustain her life.
Her trust was in her God, not in her money. Poverty was no reason to cease in
her giving to God. How many of us, on the other hand, are sure to have all of
our needs met, first, and then to give God the left-overs?

What a rebuke to those
of us who excuse ourselves from obedience to God because we have so little to
give. You will recall that the one steward who “hid his master’s money” was the
one who thought he had so little, while those with greater amounts did more. It
was not the size of the gift, but the sacrifice and the faith which prompted it
which Jesus praised. How different is our Lord from those who are in leadership
and in large ministries today.

Finally, there is an
implied contrast between the widow’s offering in verses 1-4 and the disciples’
admiration for the temple in verses 5 and following. Jesus was impressed with
what took place in the temple—with the widow’s offering; the disciples
were impressed with the temple itself—with its beauty and splendor. Man
truly looks on the outward appearance, and God on the heart, here, as always.

Conclusion

We have now come to
the “bottom line” in the on-going opposition of the Jewish leaders to Jesus.
Their real contention is with Jesus’ self-acclaimed authority. This authority
was different from and higher to any that they possessed, as was quickly
perceived by the masses:

The result was that
when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His
teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their
scribes (Matthew 7:28-29).

Jesus’ authority to
forgive sins was challenged in Luke chapter 5. His authority to enter Jerusalem
as its King, and to possess the temple was just challenged. And the basis for
His authority is rooted in His identity. Thus, the question of the religious
and political leaders, as we might paraphrase it, “Just who do you think you
are, anyway, claiming to have the authority to forgive sins, receiving men’s
praises, and possessing the temple?”

If Jesus was the
Messiah, He did have the authority to do everything He did. And if He was the
Messiah, then according to the Scriptures, He was both man and God. Other texts
clearly taught the humanity of Messiah—that He was to be the “son of
David.” The psalm which David wrote, and to which Jesus referred, also taught
the deity of Messiah, for David’s son could only be David’s Lord if He was
Lord, if He was God.

The problem which the
leaders had with Jesus was His authority, which was rooted in His identity.
Jesus was a man who acted like God because He was the God-man, God incarnate.
If the Jewish leaders did not like this, they must take the matter up with God
and with His revealed Word, for this is not just what Jesus claimed, it is what
the Scriptures taught. Even David, whose son was to be the Messiah, spoke of
Him as His Lord. If the deity of Jesus Christ were granted, everything which He
did and said would be explained and vindicated. The incarnation of our Lord is
the bedrock foundation of everything which He did and said. Reject this truth
and Jesus’ authority is nullified. Accept it, and we must submit to Him as
Lord.

In a very excellent
chapter in his book, Knowing God,
J. I. Packer writes about the crucial role played by the incarnation of our
Lord, and how the truth of His deity, mixed with His humanity, explains all
that Jesus said and did:

But in fact the real
difficulty, because the supreme mystery with which the gospel confronts us,
does not lie here at all. It lies, not in the Good Friday message of atonement,
nor in the Easter message of resurrection, but in the Christmas message of
incarnation.… This is the real stumbling-block in Christianity. It is here that
Jews, Moslems, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many of those who feel the
difficulties above mentioned (about the virgin birth, the miracles, the
atonement, and the resurrection), have come to grief. It is from misbelief, or
at least inadequate belief, about the incarnation that difficulties at other
points in the gospel story usually spring. But once the incarnation is grasped
as a reality, these other difficulties dissolve.

If Jesus had been no
more than a very remarkable, godly man, the difficulties in believing what the
new Testament tells us about his life and work would be truly mountainous. But
if Jesus was the same person as the eternal Word, the Father’s agent in
creation, ‘through whom also he made the worlds’ (Heb. 1:2, RV), it is no
wonder if fresh acts of creative power marked His coming into this world, and
His life in it, and His exit from it. It is not strange that he, the author of
life, should rise from the dead. If He was truly god the son, it is much more
startling that He should die than that He should rise again. `’Tis mystery all!
The Immortal dies,’ wrote Wesley; but there is no comparable mystery in the
Immortal’s resurrection. And if the immortal son of God did really submit to
taste death, it is not strange that such a death should have saving
significance for a doomed race. Once we grant that Jesus was divine, it becomes
unreasonable to find difficulty in any of this’ll it is all of a piece, and
hangs together completely. The incarnation is in itself an unfathomable
mystery, but it makes sense of everything else that the New Testament contains.70

The leaders of the nation
did not reject Jesus’ deity because they failed to understand His claim to be
God, nor because the Old Testament failed to indicate that Messiah would be
both divine and human, but because to do so would have required them to submit
to His authority, to obey and worship Him, to repent of their sin, to cease
receiving the glory, praise, and preeminence which their leadership roles had
come to provide for them. They, unlike the humble widow, and unlike David,
would not place their trust in Jesus, nor render to Him the worship and
adoration He deserved. Like Satan, they would glory in their position and
power, and uncontent with what God had given to them, they would seek to usurp
that which belongs only to God. Their animosity toward Jesus was so great that
they would rather have a pagan—Caesar—for their king, than Messiah.

In the light of the
character and conduct of the Jewish leaders, take note of the way in which they
had come to handle the sacred Scriptures. Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees
limited the Scriptures to that which they could grasp and were willing to
accept. The Sadducees did not wish to think of an afterlife and they could not
envision how it would work out (marriage and all), and so they rejected it,
even though a number of Scriptures clearly taught it. Similarly, the Pharisees
believed in one God, and thus they rejected the clear claims and inferences of
Jesus (e.g. the statement, “Your sins are forgiven, …” Luke 5:20-23) to be God.
They also believed that since Messiah was a man, he could not also be God, yet
He was.

In addition to
limiting divine revelation to that which can be humanly grasped and understood,
the Pharisees and Sadducees limited themselves and others to an “either/or”
mentality. Either you obeyed God, or you obeyed government, but surely you
could not do both. Thus, the question about paying taxes. Jesus differed by
saying that both God and government should be obeyed. Either Messiah was man or
He was God, but it never entered their minds that He might be a God-man.

These two
errors—(1) limiting divine revelation to that which is humanly
comprehensible, and (2) limiting to one of two options—when joined
together led to a fatal flaw in dealing with divine revelation. Problems posed
by the Scriptures led to the rejection of truth, only because it could not be
understood fully, but not because it wasn’t clearly revealed.

The confrontation
between the Jewish leaders and Jesus in our text reveals the fact that there
were two major factors involved in their rejection of Jesus, and especially of
His authority (rooted in His deity). The first factor was their practice, their
lifestyle. The wickedness of the Pharisees, as summarized by Jesus in verses
45-47, explains from a particle point of view why they would not want to submit
to the authority of Jesus as Messiah. Jesus would “clean up” their lives, just
as He cleansed the temple, and they wanted none of this. It was the holiness of
Jesus which they most loathed. Their excuses for rejecting Jesus were
hypocritical, and theological. They sought biblical reasons for their
rejection, but they were all shown to be distortions of the truth.

A recognition that the
theology of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees was the basis (the excuse) for
their denial and rejection of Jesus as the Christ forces me to reevaluate the
role of theology. Let me begin by saying that theology—the systematic
study of God and of biblical revelation—is a vitally important matter.
Most of us are not nearly the students of theology that we should be.

But let us also
remember that theology is distorted by our sin and our human limitations.
Theology is, at best, the summation of biblical truth as we understand it.
Theology differs from biblical revelation as the truth does from our
interpretation of it. When Jesus came to the earth and did not conform to the
theology of the Pharisees, or of others, men should have conformed their
theology to Christ, rather than to insist that Christ conform to their
theology. I fear that for some of us we have forgotten how distorted our
theology can become, and we begin to view it as having an equal footing with
the Word of God itself. Theology, by its very nature, is limited to our level
of understanding, but God’s Word surpasses our understanding, not often
understood until its fulfillment, and not ultimately understood until eternity,
for we now “see through a glass darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Let us therefore
hold our theology a bit more loosely, a little more tentatively, especially in
those areas where evangelicals disagree. The fundamentals we must hold fast,
but let us be on guard against “straining gnats and swallowing camels.”

How often we, like the
Pharisees and the Sadducees, are guilty of narrowing the possibilities to one
of two options, of going through life with an “either/or” mentality. The
Pharisees thought that Messiah was either God or man; Jesus declared from
Scripture that He was both. Some thought one must obey either human government
or God; Jesus taught that we must do both. We often fight about the sovereignty
of God and the responsibility of man, as though either one or the other can be
true, but they are both true.

As I have pondered
this text and the questions which the enemies of our Lord have put to Him, it
occurred to me that the One to whom all the questions were asked was Himself
the answer. I am sure that you have often seen or heard the expression, “Christ
is the answer,” but I have never seen that statement so relevant or applicable
as I have in the setting of our text. Christ was bombarded with questions, all
of which He handled beautifully, but the tragedy and irony of these things is
that Jesus, the One who was questioned so vigorously, was the answer. The
reason why they persisted with their questions is because they refused to
accept God’s answer to their problems.

Stop to ponder this
for a moment. The Jews were stunned to hear Jesus teach that Jews must render
obedience both to God and to a pagan government. How could this be? Christ is
the answer. He surrendered to the will of the Father, and so doing surrendered
Himself into the hands of Rome, to be nailed to the cross of Calvary. Jesus
lived out the answer to the problem of the Jews. How could Messiah be both God
and man? Christ is the answer. Christ is both God and man; He is God incarnate,
or, as the Old Testament prophet foretold, He is “Immanuel”—God with us
(Isaiah 7:14; cf. Matthew 1:23). There were yet other questions. For example,
the question which Peter will raise later on in his first epistle (1 Peter
1:11). The problem with which the prophets struggled was this: “How can the
Christ be One who suffers, and yet who triumphs? How can He be a sufferer and
also a triumphant ruler? How can one harmonize suffering and glory, in the same
Savior?” Christ, I repeat, is the answer. We now can see that He came first to
suffer so as to save, and He will come again to reign in righteousness and
power, subduing His enemies.

The longer I live, and
observe life, and study the Scriptures, the more I am convinced that the one
solution to all of life’s problems, to all of life’s questions, is Christ. I do
not believe that there is any question to which He is not the final and
ultimate answer. Christ is not only the solution, He is the resolution of
life’s unanswered questions and problems. Our Lord brings together those
inscrutable and seemingly incompatible aspects of life. He brings together, for
example, a righteous God and sinful men. He reconciles Jews and Gentiles, the
most irreconcilable of foes (Ephesians 2). He joins together humanity and deity,
divine sovereignty and human responsibility. He is the Great Reconciler of
those things which seem irreconcilable. To come to Him in simple repentance and
faith is to find the solution to all of life’s problems. To turn from Him is to
face countless irreconcilables with the most feeble attempts at human
resolution.

This text confronts us
with a very important insight into the problems of life, and into the problems
which we find in the Scriptures (problems, I might add, which are there by
design). This insight may be expressed as a principle: EITHER OUR PROBLEMS WILL
DRAW US TO CHRIST, OR THEY WILL DRIVE US FROM HIM

It is a very simple
truth, but a vitally important one. To the Pharisees and Sadducees, problems
were their pretext for drawing their own conclusions, in direct denial of the
Word of God. To Jesus, problems were intended to draw men to God. It was those
with great problems who came to Christ for help and healing. The seemingly
unsolvable problems raised by the Scriptures caused men of faith to turn to God
and to wait for His resolution to the seeming contradictions of the prophetic
promises, which pertained to two comings, not one. It was the problems of
prophecy which pointed to Christ as the marvelous resolution of them by God, in
a way that men could not have predicted, could not understand, and were even
reluctant to accept when He stood in their midst. Problems are designed by God
to draw men to Himself. If we reject God’s purposes for problems, they will
ultimately turn us away from Him, rather than to Him, due to our own
willfulness and sin.

My prayer for you, my
friend, as well as for myself, is that we shall find Christ a sufficient answer
for all of our questions. Those questions which are vital and eternal have a
clear answer now, in Christ. Those questions yet unanswered, have a future and
certain answer, in Christ. Christ is the answer. I pray that you have found Him
so, and that you will continue to do so.

NOTES:

68 “The critique of
their theology is addressed to the scribes (vs. 41, cf. vs. 39); the critique
of their way of life is addressed to the disciples (20;45). (a) Luke 20:41-44
poses a puzzle for the scribes very much in the same manner the Sadducees had
presented Jesus with a riddle. The pericope assumes first that ‘the Lord’ is
God, that ‘my Lord’ equals the Messiah, and that David is the author of the
psalm (vs. 42); and second, that, according to oriental mores, a son did not
surpass his father. Given assumption two, how could the Messiah be David’s son
(vs. 44)? David would not address a son of his as Lord… . The one who is
David’s son (1:69; 2:4; 3:23-38) became David’s Lord by virtue of his
resurrection-ascension-exaltation (Acts 2:34-36; 13:22-23, 33-37).” Charles H.
Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third
Gospel (New York: The Crossroad
Publishing Company, 1984), pp. 195-196.

69 “Strack-Billerbeck
show in a detailed digression on Psalm cx (op. cit., part iv, pp. 452-65) that
during New Testament times Jewish scholars regarded Psalm cx as a Messianic
psalm, but that subsequently, when the Christians used this psalm so generally
to prove the Old Testament had prophesied that they messiah would be a divine
Redeemer, they rejected its Messianic interpretation. so from about A.D. 100 to
250 they applied this psalm to Abraham! But afterwards they again accepted it
as a Messianic psalm (for then the conflict with the Christians was no longer
so violent, since the church then consisted mostly of non-Jewish members and
the church and the Jewish community each went its own way).” Norval Geldenhuys,
Commentary on the Gospel of Luke
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 517, fn. 3.